Straws in the Kansas wind

Some defeats, and some victories, for religious conservatives

ON AUGUST 1st, Kansas voters rejected two conservative members of its Board of Education in favour of slightly less conservative ones. That may not seem earth-shaking, but out-of-staters took notice. The ousted members were among those who, in November 2005, adopted science standards that called for critical examination of the theory of evolution.

This was just the latest shift in a struggle that has gone on in Kansas for years. The fact that the state is heavily Republican obscures a division within the party between those who care mostly about solid topics such as agribusiness, and those for whom cultural issues are paramount. The former, says Ed Larson of the University of Georgia, view themselves as “mainstream, respectable, Bob Dole-type conservatives” [referring to the state's most famous politician] in contrast to a “radical, know-nothing fringe”.

Every few years, however, hardline conservatives are able to nab a few spots on the school board, capitalising on the low turnout in primaries. Soon thereafter, anti-evolution measures pop up on the agenda. In 1999 six conservative members of the board led the drive to push through standards that erased all mention of evolution and also rejected the Big Bang. Half of those members were voted out at the next opportunity.

The standards introduced last November are comparatively unassuming. They avoid any specific reference to “intelligent design”, the idea that life is so mind-boggling that it can be explained only by reference to a higher power. The omission was strategic. “Conservatives have noted, quite correctly, that the courts respond very strongly to language,” says John Green of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Just last year, for example, a federal judge ruled that the guidelines introduced by a Pennsylvania school board, which did recommend teaching intelligent design, were unconstitutional.

It is surprising that voters responded so strongly to the idea of tampering with science standards. “Kansans are very sensitive to this issue,” says Mr Larson. “They don't want to be living in Oz.” However, only a minority of Americans are resolutely opposed to teaching creationism in public schools. According to a 2005 Pew Forum survey, almost two-thirds of Americans support teaching creationism alongside evolution. The idea enjoys majority support even among the secular-minded and those who believe creationism is wrong. “Most Americans are not engaged in this debate, but to the extent that they are, they support equal time—a provision that doesn't please either of the combatants,” notes Mr Green.

Kansas's new school board will most probably return to its former standards, and the debate will not be revived until the next election cycle. Meanwhile right-wing Christians, who have received several blows in the past few months, have plenty to keep them busy.

Earlier this year, pro-lifers in the South Dakota legislature passed an all-encompassing ban on abortion that made no exceptions for rape or incest. The law, which was aimed at provoking the Supreme Court to revisit Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalised abortion, was to take effect on July 1st. But its opponents gathered enough signatures to put the issue to a popular vote in the general election in November, and a recent poll suggests that South Dakotans will reject the ban.

In June, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a vaccine that protects against strains of the human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted bug that causes 70% of cervical cancer cases. Some conservatives had opposed making the vaccine available because it would supposedly encourage promiscuity.

Promiscuity seemed to be further encouraged in July, when the FDA announced it would reconsider the idea of making emergency contraception—the morning-after pill, sold under the brand name Plan B—available on demand to women over the age of 18. The announcement came the day before the agency's acting head, Andrew von Eschenbach, faced his confirmation hearing in the Senate. But it was made under political pressure from Democrats (Hillary Clinton in particular), who have pledged to hold up the nomination until they get a firm yes or no from Dr Eschenbach. They are pushing for a yes, but may well not get one.

The stem-cell wars

Conservative Christians claimed one victory on July 19th, when George Bush used the first veto of his presidency to block a bill that would have expanded federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. But it was followed by a flurry of articles noting that a majority of Americans support such research. And the next day Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rod Blagojevich, governors of California and Illinois, pointedly skipped round the veto by announcing that they would continue to support stem-cell research with state money.

It would be premature, however, to say that the influence of the religious right on social issues is waning. A survey conducted from July 6th-19th by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life suggests that Americans remain divided on these subjects. Some 46% of respondents, for example, believe that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, and 41% think that the morning-after pill should not be made available over the counter.

Republicans have won several primaries this year by running as social conservatives. On August 10th Joe Schwarz, a Republican representative from Michigan, lost a primary battle to Tim Walberg. Mr Schwarz was a moderate who supported abortion choice and stem-cell research, which Mr Walberg opposes. In May Ohio's evangelical secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell, defeated Jim Petro, a moderate, for the Republican nomination for governor. Mr Blackwell would like to ban abortion and restrict stem-cell research, and opposes gay marriage on the ground that it “defies not only human logic but barnyard logic.” That sort of talk usually goes down well in Kansas, too.